tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425Tue, 07 Oct 2014 04:55:44 +0000Jo Hayeshttp://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)Blogger152125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-4292005557966705195Sun, 27 Nov 2011 02:26:00 +00002011-11-27T02:32:22.422+00:00ELDR news from Palermo<div>Here is my report back to Liberal Democrats who directly elected me (thank you!) to the party’s delegation to the European Liberal, Democratic and Reform Party (ELDR). </div><div>The second Council meeting of 2011 (there are two annually) and the annual Congress took place in Palermo, Sicily on 23-25 November at the invitation of the Italia dei Valori (Italy of Principles) Party. </div><div>There were resolutions and emergency resolutions proposed by member parties, too many to summarise here, of which the most significant was, I think, one from the UK Liberal Democrats on the prospect of war with Iran. The gist is that it expresses concern at military rhetoric, top-level consultations between military and political leaders and the stationing of military assets off the Iranian coast pointing to the possibility of pre-emptive attacks being launched by Israel and the USA against Iran., and it calls for steps to be taken in Europe to dissuade them. When the US military are still engaged in both Iraq and Afghanistan one might think that they would not contemplate such a thing, but the evidence is worrying. After the Iraq “dodgy dossier” saga we do not need another war based on dubious grounds. </div><div>The main theme resolution, emanating from the ELDR leadership, was on the EU budget. As amended and adopted, it is a long resolution but the gist is, I think, that it welcomes the European Commission’s proposals to reduce the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) support to 36.2% of the total budget for a new 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and affirms that on the expenditure side it must continue to move away from price support and export subsidies for agricultural produce. It calls for inclusion of funding for alternative areas of expenditure with the common feature of being areas where the Union can deliver more than individual countries acting alone (“European added value”). Climate change, renewable energy, water management, biodiversity and innovation are such areas. Research and development co-operation, avoiding wasteful duplication of effort, is a specific example. On the income side, the theme resolution as finally adopted contains a passage welcoming debate on reform of EU revenues but specifically rejects the European Commission’s proposals for new own resources to include a financial transaction tax or an EU-level VAT. Delegates were obviously worried that this might increase the overall tax burden on member states although it would not necessarily do so. Against the background of financial crisis as the world struggles to cope with the near-collapse of the banks by austerity measures meaning hardship for entire populations, Congress was in no mood to approve an increase in taxation nor in the EU budget overall. In failing to include wording from the UK Liberal Democrats referring to a possible EU-level tax on carbon, Congress in my view threw out the baby with the bath water, but I trust that we will bring this back to the next Congress. </div><div>The Congress elected British MEP Sir Graham Watson unopposed as its new President. In a speech too meaty to summarise adequately here, Sir Graham made it known that his Presidency would be energetic and ambitious for liberalism in Europe. He expressed a vision of our troubled times in which crisis is opportunity. His analysis was that socialism is in terminal decline and old political élites are reeling from electoral punishment for having contributed to the financial crisis that is bringing hardships to the people, while climate change poses an existential threat. He argued that liberal principles and values had the solutions and retreat into nationalism did not. He announced his intention to welcome more Democratic and Reform parties into our grouping. His aim was so that the ALDE bloc of MEPs in the European Parliament grows while the EPP and Socialist blocs wane. He also intends to press for changes that increase democratic legitimacy including the direct election of MEPs by one European election rather than 27 national elections. </div><div>ELDR’s business between congresses is managed by a Bureau, and Congress elected to it five Vice-Presidents, four in normal course and one to fill the seat vacated by Sir Graham Watson on becoming President. I have to mention one of these Vice-Presidents: Leoluca Orlando, of the Italia Dei Valori party. He, while mayor of Palermo from 1985 to 1990 and 1993 to 2000, courageously took steps to decouple public procurement from Mafia-owned businesses by removing their companies from the list of those allowed to tender for new contracts. </div><div>At this momentous time for Italians, emerging from the long bad dream of Berlusconi’s premiership, Italy of Principles Party leader Antonio di Pietro MP told us that the Berlusconi era had left deep scars. It was the end of Berlusconi but not of Berlusconism: a nexus of privilege, selfishness and giving precedence to local and family interests. He spoke of the need for cultural restoration of legality, public ethics and civic consciousness, which are the basis of every market economy. He told us that Italy of Principles supported the new Monti government of technocrats. This involved some sacrifice in that, had the scheduled elections taken place, the party would have done well. </div><div>Consistently with the theme of European added value, Sir Graham Watson spoke of some big-picture inspiring projects for Europe ELDR activists to campaign for. One example he mentioned is the European electricity supergrid, a means of connecting up and distributing Europe’s renewable energy long-distance for use throughout the region. These ideas were explored at a fringe meeting on the renewables revolution and an electricity supergrid, at which the management of a “smart” grid, fed by sources of renewable energy including solar, wind, hydro, biomass and geothermal energy, was discussed. He acknowledges the science that points to dangerous climate chaos from burning fossil fuels, and he has taken up the cause of the electricity supergrid as part of a solution to that. He also sees it as an answer to the security threat posed by dependency on fossil fuels from outside countries, evidenced by the behaviour of governments who have in recent winters not hesitated to turn off the supply pipe to Europe when it suited them, leaving Europeans shivering without fuel. In addition to these factors there is the relentless rise in the price of oil and in Europe’s energy bill, because world supply is finite while demand is growing. For these reasons even climate change sceptics can scarcely deny that it is in Europe’s interests to invest in the supergrid. And the beauty of the supergrid proposal is that it deals with objections (mainly aimed at wind energy) that renewable energy sources that are intermittent are no good. Even if the wind is not blowing in your area, wind energy from elsewhere in Europe can be brought to you via the supergrid. As for solar energy, the sun doesn’t shine at night, but its heat can be stored for use at night. The fringe meeting speakers explained that energy storage is in practice not difficult, provided that legislative changes permit electricity grid companies to build and be owners of storage facilities (which currently is not allowed). As people across the EU begin to see the Internet-like potential for a diversity of sources to feed energy into the grid, I believe this proposal will be a winner. </div><div>The Council accepted a membership application from the Democratic Alliance Party of Greece, a new party led by Dora Bakoyannis who was expelled from the Nia Demokratia party last year for voting with the Socialist-led government in favour of the EU-IMF backed financial stability loan. If the crisis bringing home to Greeks the impossibility of continuing previous high-spending policies is an opportunity for realignment of political forces away from alternating Socialist and Conservative government, it could just be that this new party emerges as a significant player in the liberal centre. </div><div>ELDR now offers associate membership applications to individuals for 25 euros per annum. If you are interested in joining, visit www.eldr.eu/associate </div><div>The next Council will be in May 2012. The next Congress will be in Dublin in November 2012, and its theme will be the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. It will be based on an excellent joint paper called “A Liberal Roadmap for Energy Transition” produced with ELDR backing by the UK Liberal Democrats, the Swedish Centerpartiet and the Netherlands D66 party. ELDR is doing good work. </div><div>And Palermo is a great place to visit! </div><div><br /></div>http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2011/11/eldr-news-from-palermo.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-2891296591245589167Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:35:00 +00002011-07-20T22:51:05.771+01:00Mendel, the great modest man, and his magnificent ideaToday, or what's left of it, is Gregor Mendel's 189th birthday, and as he is one of my heroes, I feel the need to shout about it. Mendel was one of those people who led a modest life, saw and observed the same world as the rest of us, but did it so much better, more insightfully, more thoughtfully, and came up with an idea that is so simple, profound and right that the rest of us will spend the rest of time thinking: <i>how come no one had thought of that before?</i> In his case, it was a few rows of peas (round, wrinkled, etc) sown annually and the produce patiently counted and re-sown, plus maths, that revealed the solution to the bit Charles Darwin hadn't solved: how, from generation to generation, did heredity happen? The nuts and bolts of it? Nowadays we witter on about genes, DNA and all the rest of it, as though these ideas had always been there, but in Mendel's time hardly anyone had so much as a clue, and then Mendel wrote a clue. Some say he tweaked the maths, but even if he did, his clue was magnificent. Actually he sent a copy of his paper about peas and heredity to Darwin, but it was found in Darwin's library with the pages still uncut, so he never got round to reading it. Ships that pass in the night. So sad. Happy birthday.http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2011/07/mendel-great-modest-man-and-his.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-1135184886715991530Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:12:00 +00002011-07-20T22:34:39.247+01:00On blogging (and grammarians)The Hansard report on bloggers a week or so ago got me thinking why I don't blog that often. Someone intimated that I did it all wrong, I didn't react quickly to events and it wasn't a proper blog unless it was a weblog, a daily (or more frequent) diary. So I was duly put down, until I asked myself: who are these people who set themselves up as experts on how blogging should be done? Like 6th century Latin grammarians. Good grief, it's only just been invented. So I will go on doing it the way I like, when a posting has ripened enough to be a fruit that someone somewhere might think worth picking.http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2011/07/on-blogging-and-grammarians.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-5233186548838284485Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:34:00 +00002011-06-23T11:06:36.537+01:00The dystopia that awaits us all?After takeoff, as the aircraft gained height, Metro Manila gradually came into view: a grey jumble of human habitation punctuated by clustered skyscrapers, intersected by meanders of a noxious-looking, mustard-coloured river, sprawling across an enormous plain bounded on the west side by the sea and in other directions not at all, further than the eye could see, eventually obscured by pollution haze and clouds. <br /><br />Making life bearable in this monster megacity is just one aspect of the problems faced by President Aquino's government. Already it is home to upwards of 15 million people and it is growing all the time as the burgeoning Filipino population drifts to the cities in hope of making a living. As it grows, so do the problems. <br /><br />Is Metro Manila a premonition of things to come for our species? If global population growth proceeds as forecast, then yes. Population growth threatens to render all our efforts to tackle individual basic needs – food, water, housing, air fit to breathe, disease control – futile, and threatens to relegate our hope of improving quality of life for our species and conserving other species to mere pipe-dreams. Yet when I raised the issue of global population growth on the UK Liberal Democrats' Federal Policy Committee I was shut up: it has become politically incorrect to talk about it. <br /><br />A shift in the spectrum of public debate has been engineered largely by the US extreme religious Right, whose support George W Bush courted during his presidency. Opposing contraception and abortion are key parts of their continuing agenda. And by silence, we are complicit in this shift taking place. Some think silence is the best policy, but it cedes this territory to the Right. Since when has not talking been an effective way to win a debate on anything? The territory of those issues needs to be fought over by vigorous debate. PC should not stand for political correctness, but for population concern.http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2011/06/dystopia-that-awaits-us-all.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-2952248256133969131Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:02:00 +00002011-06-20T14:18:01.599+01:00Thoughts from Manila about remarkable peopleEven to me, a foreigner, here in Manila the significance of President “Noynoy” Aquino’s government having made today a national holiday to mark the 150th anniversary of José Rizal’s birth is obvious. Rizal was a man of many talents and republican convictions who opposed colonial rule until executed by Spanish firing squad in 1896. The current President’s father Benigno (“Ninoy”) Aquino was the Liberal Party leader who returned from exile in 1983 to oppose US-backed dictator Ferdinand Marcos, only to be assassinated as he arrived at Manila airport. I suspect that for ordinary Filipinos both murdered men have hero status bearing comparison with President John F Kennedy for Americans.<br /><br />The current President took a little time off from affairs of state to welcome Liberal delegates from around the world to his palace last Saturday and give the keynote speech of Liberal International Congress. He seemed to me an unassuming man, and my impression is reinforced by reading that when asked what he would wear at his inauguration he is said to have replied: old glasses and a watch, a new fountain pen, a new barong [type of knife], old pants, decent underwear. But the words of his speech on Saturday were steely. He reaffirmed his intention to follow the “straight path” and to root out the Philippines’ notorious corruption. Not just words: news reports here during my short visit have daily confirmed that Aquino appointees are investigating scandals surrounding powerful figures during his predecessor Gloria Arroyo’s presidency, and recommending prosecutions. <br /><br />He needs all his resolve. As popular uprisings plunge the Middle East into uncertainty, I am reminded that the first “people power” revolution – certainly the first in recent times – was in the Philippines. In 1986 millions of unarmed people poured into the streets and with courage and faith stayed there, facing down the army, until the rapacious and hated Marcos was forced to flee into exile. The murdered Ninoy Aquino’s widow, Corazon (“Cory”), was elected President and brought in a new constitution. But the interests that supported Marcos were still there, subsequent presidencies have been scandal-ridden, and currently the country is looking to Noynoy Aquino for real change. He was swept to power by popular vote; the first anniversary of his inauguration comes up on 30th June.<br /><br />According to reports, Noynoy Aquino campaigned - wearing a trademark yellow shirt, which will resonate with UK Liberal Democrats - on the pledge “no corruption, no poverty”, mixing with the poor and listening to them. The painful memory of his father’s fate on the airport tarmac in 1983, as well as the torture and injustice suffered by friends and colleagues at the hands of Marcos cronies, are surely the motivation for the President’s decision to follow his father and mother into public life, although he is wealthy enough to live in comfort and safety. I admire his resolve, and wish him all the very best with the two enormous tasks of tackling corruption and poverty.http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2011/06/thoughts-from-manila-about-remarkable.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-6393952255008480613Wed, 11 May 2011 07:44:00 +00002011-05-11T08:47:42.815+01:00This is a time when it's right to get angryWhat’s the real story of the past year in a nutshell? <br />The country had had enough of Labour. Tired, bereft of ideas and saddled with an unpopular leader who had been in charge as the country blundered into the debt crisis, Labour was out of the picture. <br />So the Tories and Lib Dems did the responsible thing – did a deal on what they could agree on, to get a workable stable government and avoid financial meltdown for this debt-laden country. <br />If the country does not have good governance, all politicking over this or that policy is futile. <br />But our opponents don’t want people to think about this. They are talking constantly the language of Lib Dem “betrayal”. They would say that, wouldn’t they? <br />Labour wouldn’t say their party had gullibly let the City do whatever it liked under “light touch regulation”, spent public funds like there’s no tomorrow, and then left a note for the new chancellor saying there’s no money left, would they? But that’s what really happened. Labour betrayed the country. <br />The Tories wouldn’t say it was they who had persuaded our leadership to compromise on policies with big price tags such as higher education funding, in order to get a deal with our leadership on the fundamentals – dealing with the debt crisis and getting the real economy going in a sustainable way – and then turned round and stabbed our leadership in the back, would they? But that’s what they did, and that’s betrayal. <br />Of course they wouldn’t. Our opponents love repeating the words “Liberal Democrats” and “betrayal” in the same breath. Words that injure. <br />Most people have short memories for factual details, but they do remember how they feel about people. Do they like them? Can they trust them and rely on them? We need to go out fighting and challenge that mindset every time. I mean EVERY time. That means challenging the words. <br />I don’t do betrayal, and my party doesn’t either. Sometimes it is right to get angry, and now is one of those times.http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2011/05/this-is-time-when-its-right-to-get.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-5890619795734235038Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:11:00 +00002010-10-14T17:18:40.314+01:00The Browne Report - where to go from hereDear Nick, <br />I believe that tertiary education should be available to everyone in the UK, rich or poor, especially poor, who can benefit from it. <br />But I have never supported scrapping tuition fees. That would involve using State taxation powers to compel the lower-paid, who are less likely to have benefited from tertiary education, to subsidise the higher-paid who are more likely. I don’t think John Stuart Mill would have approved. <br />People with degrees get paid more. It is only fair that a person who gets the benefit and is able without hardship to contribute to the cost, should do so. <br />In view of the huge expansion in tertiary education, I believe scrapping tuition fees is unaffordable. It was unaffordable before the banking crisis. It is even less affordable now that the country is burdened with a huge deficit caused by bailing out the banks. <br />That is my personal view but current Lib Dem policy, made democratically by vote at Conference, is otherwise. Scrapping tuition fees is party policy. <br />It is, however, not a fundamental value. Policies can change, values don’t. <br />So what’s to be done? <br />I have looked at the Browne Report, which is readily available for download by anyone with internet access. It states that allowing students to defer payment of fees is critical to takeup. <br />The Browne recommendations allow for this by making nothing payable by students for fees. Nothing is repayable unless they graduate and begin to earn a good income. If anything is repayable, it is related to their ability to pay. <br />That seems fair to me. <br />The Browne Report states that making funds available for maintenance by deferred loans is also critical to takeup. <br />That seems fair to me too. It is better than a grant system based on family income because it frees students from family circumstances.<br />The Browne recommendations propose the same provision for part-time students for the first time. <br />That seems fair to me as well. Currently they have to pay up front, which is a hardship. <br />The Browne Report states that the percentage of young people in tertiary education in the UK has risen from 6% in 1960 to 45% today. This is a huge number of people. The cost has rocketed. I don’t see how free tertiary education can be paid for. <br />People who want to learn, who want that qualification, will welcome the opportunity offered by the Browne proposals. <br />In May’s General Election the party campaigned on a policy of scrapping tuition fees but the party did not win a majority. It got only 57 seats. The policy is still party policy, but we cannot implement it. <br />So where do we go from here? <br />The fact that some MPs have promised on the record – whether in writing or not does not matter - to support scrapping tuition fees puts them in a dilemma. The promise cannot be unmade. But to vote that way would be futile in the sense that whether they do or not, scrapping tuition fees is not going to happen. The arithmetic of democracy has made sure of that. <br />I am not convinced that the obligation to keep their personal promises entitles them to give right-wing Tories a precedent for rebelling in future over other issues which may be even more important. <br />The arithmetic of democracy has given the MPs power but it rules them too.http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2010/10/browne-report-where-to-go-from-here.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-2365705831292317930Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:26:00 +00002010-07-14T09:55:08.419+01:00First CGT, now VAT, what next?The Lib Dems are holding an awayday tomorrow on the coalition, which I can't go to because of my day job. As possibly the Federal Policy Committee's longest-serving member, I call on them to come up with a solution on how to handle our coalition partners (at Westminster level but certainly not at mine!) when they try to depart from the coalition agreement. A solution means stopping them from doing it. For me, it is hard enough to accept that we helped the Tories into Downing Street and are helping keep them there. I can accept it on the basis that each side did a deal whereby a mix of policies derived from each side would become the new programme, and that the coalition agreement sets out that deal. And an Englishman's word is his bond, or at any rate the best of them's is. But almost as soon as the ink was dry on the coalition agreement, the coalition started departing from it. I can understand this if a new unforeseen circumstance ("Events, dear boy, events") forces a new policy response. But what was new in the scenario affecting capital gains tax? We are told that the 28% CGT rate for non-business gains is the optimum rate because if any higher, the government would lose revenue. What is the new evidence for this and where is it from? I am sceptical whether there is any. I question whether that claim is more than, in reality, an excuse, no a pretext, for the Tories getting their way on keeping the tax light on the well-off in society who are their main support base. That is I suppose to be expected of them, but given that it is contrary to the express terms of the coalition agreement, why are our people supporting it? Equally puzzling is last night's vote on Value Added Tax or VAT, but for a slightly different reason - it is <span style="font-style:italic;">not mentioned in the coalition agreement at all</span>. I have searched the entire coalition agreement and nowhere is VAT mentioned. Not once. So why are our Westminster MPs obediently voting for it? They have no obligation to do so if it is not agreed. What is going to be the next thing that is not Lib Dem policy, but that the Tories get our MPs to vote for? And can they justify that to the Federal Policy Committee, the party members (e.g. me) who worked and worked so hard to get them into Parliament and the electorate? If so, how?http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2010/07/first-cgt-now-vat-what-next.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-3585078621317138042Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:25:00 +00002010-06-24T00:31:06.962+01:00Tory breach of contract on capital gains taxThe Lib Dem-Con coalition agreement states: "We will seek ways of taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities." The Treasury's budget report states: "Effective from 23 June 2010, capital gains tax will rise from 18 to 28 per cent for those with total income and taxable gains above the higher rate threshold... Basic rate taxpayers will continue to pay an 18 per cent rate on their gains. The 10 per cent capital gains tax rate for entrepreneurial business activities will be extended from the first £2 million to the first £5 million of qualifying gains made over a lifetime... The 50p rate of income tax took effect from April 2010 and will remain in place for the time being." <br />Spot the difference? Of course you do. This means that the Tories have already reneged on the coalition agreement for the sake of their friends the haves, and will do so again if allowed to get away with it. Meanwhile social services are slashed, so that elderly and vulnerable people who yesterday were acknowledged to need such services are today told they can't have them any more, which makes me choke. This feeble move on CGT is contrary not only to the coalition agreement but also to the advice of former Tory Chancellor Nigel Lawson who on the CGT rates question advocates reversing the economically unsound meddling of Gordon Brown. In this Lawson agrees with Saint Vince of Twickenham, a voice of sanity on this question regrettably unheard as he is silenced by loyalty and by parliamentary convention in his role as business secretary (though he ought to be chancellor). <br />What's to be done? My suggestion is that the Lib Dem leadership should find their backbones, which seem to have deserted them recently, and start playing the cards the electorate has dealt them, by which I mean the 57 Lib Dem MPs' votes, to see off the Tory right. Where are the Tory right going to go if they don't get their way?http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2010/06/tory-breach-of-contract-on-capital.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-6853578334418980094Thu, 13 May 2010 22:39:00 +00002010-05-14T00:16:04.861+01:00What people are talking aboutThe coalition has been the only topic of conversation on Westminster's streets for the last two days, or so it's seemed to me on walks between Victoria and Fleet Street. The novelty of the new setup attracts curiosity, unsurprisingly, but I also detect an unusual level of goodwill. It is as though a higher percentage of people than usual feel that they own a piece of this new government. And they can, because about two thirds of those who voted supported a faction that is now part of the government. Another factor behind the general air of optimism could be a response to enthusiastic fresh faces in ministerial posts. Or is it just because it's spring, and the grass is full of daisy flowers in St. James's Park? By the way, for those who rate omens, there was a rainbow over the Palace of Westminster on Tuesday evening.http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-people-are-talking-about.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-6738095280672459141Tue, 11 May 2010 07:48:00 +00002010-05-11T09:30:28.885+01:00The prizeRemember that line about being wary of them even when they bring gifts? That is how I feel about the Conservatives with their very late offer of a referendum on the Alternative Vote system. Behind the courtesy at the negotiating table they thought the Lib Dems had no alternative to a Tory-LD deal. The Right were salivating at the thought of getting power back. It seems they thought they could get away with not offering a referendum. The offer was only dragged out of them when the LD team began to walk away. Clearly the Conservatives still love First Past the Post and that is not surprising - it has served them very well. But the national interest requires that the era of phoney majorities based on a minority of the popular vote must end. The electorate has this time withheld a majority whether in the Commons or in votes cast from <span style="font-style:italic;">any </span>party. Many more people voted against the Conservatives than for. Even the inscrutable millions who could have voted and didn't were expressing something that could be interpreted as disillusionment and a feeling of powerlessness. This cannot go on. The arithmetic of an LD-Lab alliance could, just, work, as I don't see the minor parties rocking that boat if launched. So in my view, the LD team is right to talk now to Labour. The prize is an electoral system in which the people's votes really count, that could reinvigorate our democracy. The electorate has given the LD team a unique opportunity to bring both main parties to heel, and they are right to take it. But I'm wary of Labour bearing gifts, too.http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2010/05/prize.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-8148781481870545098Sat, 08 May 2010 16:17:00 +00002010-05-08T17:35:56.958+01:00It is so strange!Something enormous happened early on Friday morning, in an understated and very British way. The Lib Dems suffered casualties, but emerged from the latest contests with 57 MPs, who now block the entrance to 10 Downing Street for a humbled David Cameron (only weeks ago so confident of victory). It is so strange! How best to exploit the advantage handed to us by millions of individual choices made by the British people? Some object to a deal with Labour, others to a deal with the Tories, but this is not on: our MPs are not in a situation of their own choice and they have to deal with a reality that is not of anyone's making, or rather is of everyone's making. I cannot fault Nick Clegg's announcement so far that fundamental political reform is a sine qua non of any deal, and if David Cameron doesn't like it, tough: he will probably find minority government is worse. As for other conditions, like millions of people I would be relieved and glad to see Vince Cable as Chancellor because he deserves our trust at this difficult time. Do your best and go for it, Nick!http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2010/05/it-is-so-strange.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-8970123641996818841Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:15:00 +00002009-09-27T22:27:55.162+01:00German Liberal Democrats poised to join Merkel-led governmentExciting times for the European Liberal Democratic and Reform (ELDR) Party, to which the UK Liberal Democrats belong: fellow-members the Liberal Democrats (FDP) in Germany have done well enough in today's elections to enable the Christian Democrats, led by popular Chancellor Mrs Angela Merkel, to form a government in coalition with them, leaving out the SPD. Yes, Liberal Democrats are going to be part of the German government. Geddit, Jeremy Paxman?http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2009/09/german-liberal-democrats-poised-to-join.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-8258484956673410273Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:16:00 +00002009-08-14T20:29:37.889+01:00From healthcare to climate bill - not grassroots but AstroturfEfforts to disguise co-ordinated campaigns by interested groups as apparently spontaneous public reactions are called astroturfing, after the artificial turf used on sports pitches, not to be confused with genuine grassroots. The anti-Obama, anti-National Health Service rhetoric is a case in point. It is diverting attention from what healthcare insurers do not want people to know: medical bills cause more bankruptcies in the USA than any other cause. <br />Hard on the heels of the healthcare astroturfing we can apparently expect for the rest of this month a series of so-called “Energy Citizen” rallies across 20 States of the USA, to which employees of oil companies and other rentacrowds will be bussed at the expense of the American Petroleum Institute with the aim of influencing US Senators to oppose the climate bill and the Obama administration’s tax increases on the oil industry. <br />At the rallies, the API participants will push two messages: job losses and energy cost increases. Participants will apparently be given extended lunch hours for this purpose and supplied with free refreshments in the form of junk food and drink. <br />In a leaked email that I have downloaded, the API has told member companies: “your facility manager’s commitment to provide significant attendance—is essential to achieving the participation level that Senators cannot ignore.”<br />As I said, consider the source. <br />Got your pinch of salt ready, everyone?http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-healthcare-to-climate-bill-not.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-7551624068898282278Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:51:00 +00002009-08-13T17:58:52.983+01:00Consider the sourceEarlier this week I read a piece about the “revolting” use of “manipulative language” by the present government in order to “inspire fear” concerning Britain’s food security and prepare us all for Stalinist intervention with a view to imposing vegetarianism. (No, it was not in the <em>Daily Mail</em>: I don’t read the rag.) Naturally this brought on a panic attack, but I managed to recover enough to go online and find the culprit publication apparently referred to. <br />It is a report by DEFRA which gets right down to business in paragraph two with the sentence: “By any objective measure, we enjoy a high degree of food security in the UK today.” Are you frightened yet? <br />The report (entitled <em>UK Food Security Assessment: Our Approach</em>, available on DEFRA's website) strikes me as a sober and thoughtful document which is well worth reading by anyone seriously interested in public policy. <br />On the other hand, dear reader, if you are not seriously interested in public policy then by all means go on believing second-hand, or more remote, regurgitation of what is actually stated. And do by all means blog about it. Just don’t expect me to bother reading it. <br />While studying for the law, one of the best bits of advice I received, which I in turn like to pass on, was: never cite a case you haven't read. <br /><em>Moral: consider the source.</em>http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2009/08/consider-source.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-5964034514015845661Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:38:00 +00002009-08-11T10:58:25.170+01:00"Corner" is not the name of a sizeAs a character in the sci-fi novel <span style="font-style:italic;">Perelandra</span> said, "corner" is not the name of a size. So a small event can be a corner for the world. A corner was turned in a Burma courtroom when a small frail lady crossed the room and told reporters that she looked forward to working with them for the sake of her country, freedom and world peace. The small lady brushed off the generals, the sham trial and the sham conviction as if fluff on her collar. She, the convicted defendant, became the judge. It is as if she said the generals will fall, as every tyranny does in the end. How it happens is obscure but fall they will because they have no legitimacy and no friends, and have killed so many good and innocent people. However that may be, the generals are going, and so the small lady did not speak of them, but contemplated what lies beyond, exemplifying the spirit of the Burmese people which I so admire. I think we, as members of the international community, should do whatever the Burmese opposition asks to help bring their freedom about.http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2009/08/corner-is-not-name-of-size.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-2194386262551213021Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:22:00 +00002009-08-07T13:36:02.366+01:00The City of London - where all bankers and lawyers are above average?The Lake Wobegon effect was proposed some months ago as an explanation for Chief Executives' ever-increasing pay in the US. In Lake Wobegon (Garrison Keillor's fictitious town), all the children are above average. <br />The way it works is that all corporate boards want their executives to be above average. That cannot possibly be the case for everyone, but not to worry. Markets run on investor confidence and perception, so if a company gives its executives above average pay and bonuses, they will <span style="font-style:italic;">look</span> above average, and this will make the company look strong. Hence an upward pay spiral. <br />Warren Buffett wrote in 2007: "CEO perks at one company are quickly copied elsewhere. “All the other kids have one” may seem a thought too juvenile to use as a rationale in the boardroom. But consultants employ precisely this argument, phrased more elegantly of course, when they make recommendations to comp committees." <br />Once the public has rumbled this, why don't companies get off the bandwagon and pay their executives a moderate reward for the job? Because, according to the analysis, a company that pays its executives moderately could be perceived as admitting that they are only average or below, which would harm its share price. <br />Taking this a bit further, it is argued that if lower-paid executives were in fact above average, they would have been poached by a company that is willing to pay more. So any executive that is lower-paid can't be above average. <br />But, I wonder to myself, as there are only so many banking jobs in existence, and if a lot of them are already occupied by average-or-below executives whose merits have been talked up by means of high pay, who are not going to be fired because that would involve the company admitting having been wrong, nor are they going to move in a hurry since they are already getting more pay than they merit, how do vacancies come up? Over to you, dear reader. <br />As I see it, the essential problem is that everyone involved in this process treats pay level as evidence of performance quality rather than looking at the actual performance itself. But looking at the actual performance is more complicated and difficult as well as presenting confidentiality problems, so most investors, I suppose, do not bother. <br />The Lake Wobegon effect has been blamed for the preposterous sums paid to some of the UK's top bankers who, it is now painfully obvious, were in fact worse than useless. <br />A similar thing happens in both branches of the English legal profession where lawyers with the chutzpah to demand silly money for their services often get it. This is then cited as evidence of brilliance. <br />It sounds a lot of nonsense doesn't it? Yet it is still happening.http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2009/08/city-of-london-where-all-bankers-and.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-6584634015765796488Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:49:00 +00002009-08-05T23:04:36.929+01:00Men are to blame for the crunch? Ridiculous - but hang on, that's what Peston is saying... er...I would like to know why it was that when Robert Peston blogged on 29th July that men were to blame for the crunch, there was not a peep out of anyone. When Harriet Harman said something not very different, she was scoffed at and insulted. Answers on a postcard please!http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2009/08/men-are-to-blame-for-crunch-ridiculous.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-8419420912082408538Sun, 02 Aug 2009 09:00:00 +00002009-08-02T12:28:03.142+01:00In praise of Peter WeirThree of my favourite films are on the face of it utterly different, so it was a surprise when i realised that all were directed by the same man. In the first, <span style="font-style:italic;">Witness</span>, an action thriller is metamorphosed into a meditation about simplicity and modernity, innocence and corruption, harmony and violence as a detective is forced by circumstances and his own decency to protect a young boy who was the sole witness to a murder and then has to go into hiding himself among the boy's Amish community that lives surrounded by the American way of life but apart from it. No pea-brained females with bee-stung lips in this film; instead we get a real woman, exquisitely played by Kelly McGillis. In fact everyone seems real. The police officer, played with grit, emotional intensity and depth by Harrison Ford, is trapped in the violent culture he comes from, and blows his own cover by challenging some young thugs who have picked on his Amish party on a trip to the local town. Ultimately in a gripping scene the policeman aided by the boy and the whole Amish community saves the boy and himself from assassins who come to look for them, but he and the woman he loves must part because he cannot cross the divide between the two worlds. <br />The second film is <span style="font-style:italic;">The Truman Show</span>, which (imho) deserved the Oscar for Best Film but was perhaps meat too strong for the judges. The protagonist (played by Jim Carrey who makes credible a difficult and uncharacteristically serious role) is a young man unaware that he is the only real person in his entire small-town world which is in fact a 24-hour soap opera owned by a corporation and directed by a pitiless apparently all-powerful mastermind (played excellently by Ed Harris). In this world nothing is sincere and everything is fake except the hero. There are multi-layered audiences: the audience in the film, for whom the hero's entire life is TV entertainment, and the audience <span style="font-style:italic;">of</span> the film, who are in on the secret before the hero himself, though its true awfulness is revealed only gradually, such as the moment when he has a domestic argument with his wife who blows her cover by speaking to her minders behind the hidden camera and then resigns from her contract, or the moment when his best friend asks whether he would lie to him - a line which is itself dictated through a hidden earpiece by the Ed Harris character. The film depicts the hero growing in maturity and understanding as cracks appear in the fake world, he gradually perceives the truth and eventually, with the help of a woman who loves him and manages to infiltrate the fake world to reach him (Natascha McElhone) makes his escape to the real world. What is this film about? Obviously it is a metaphor but one that defies definition. A mockery of soaps, of consumerism, of media manipulation, yes, but it also asks what is real, who and what can we trust? It is not really a comedy, either: almost every scene screams, "It's not funny!" <br />The third film is <span style="font-style:italic;">Master and Commander: the Far Side of the World</span> in which we are in the Napoleonic Wars aboard an English warship. England and France are vying for mastery of the seas. The English vessel is seriously outgunned by a French privateer which is prowling the oceans, but the English commander (played by Russell Crowe) will not give up and admit defeat. Ultimately by a series of brilliant ruses the Englishman wins. However, that is only the bare bones of what the film is really about. It is really about the microcosm of life on an eighteenth-century ship, recreated in minute and often grisly detail, whether accurate in all respects I couldn't say, but utterly convincing. It is also about the Galapagos Islands and an opportunity to make great scientific discoveries missed because the English commander does not understand what they might signify, though his friend the ship's surgeon does. It is also about courage, ingenuity, friendship, music. Or is it about subverting all the norms of a Hollywood film? Remarkably there is not a single female speaking part in the whole film. Or is it about the love of the sea, and of film-making itself? The film is based on Patrick O'Briens Jack Aubrey novels, without being slavishly tied to any one of them. A jewel of a film. <br />So what do the three films have in common? A world within a world; central characters who are complex and intriguing and re forced to make choices and mistakes; masterly attention to detail; wonderful use of music; rejection of everything shallow and superficial; all these things and more.http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2009/08/in-praise-of-peter-weir.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-8261082760431378865Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:06:00 +00002009-08-01T20:58:21.923+01:00A dishonourable regimeAccording to many commentators including the BBC, Ahmadinejad's support is supposed to come from rural areas. But the CIA Factbook and other websites say that in 2008 around 68 per cent of the Iranian population lived in cities and the proportion is increasing at about 1.7 per cent a year. This is why I find the current regime's claim that Ahmadinejad won the election in June simply incredible. (The BBC, incidentally, has been very polite about the whole subject of the disputed election, but it does not stop a thinking observer from putting two and two together.} <br />Since the current regime is perpetuating such an enormous lie without shame, I suppose we should not be surprised that the trials going on today have been rushed to a hearing, doubtless in order to intimidate the population. Footage from inside the courtroom shows huge portraits of elderly ayatollahs hanging on the wall behind the judges as if to emphasise that there is no distinction between the political and judicial authorities. <br />The current regime is dishonourable and deserves no respect and I do not suppose it will get any from the people, no matter how many plainclothes thugs it lets loose on them. <br />By the way, I would like to know why the crowd let go the thug who killed Neda, and where he is now and why <span style="font-style:italic;">he</span> is not on trial.http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2009/08/dishonourable-regime.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-1656145545188055384Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:09:00 +00002009-07-30T18:24:04.773+01:00We are Neda<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hCTQuDIWA24/SnHU-znv8PI/AAAAAAAAABE/uD7lPUjFj6k/s1600-h/Neda.JPG"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 140px; height: 110px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hCTQuDIWA24/SnHU-znv8PI/AAAAAAAAABE/uD7lPUjFj6k/s320/Neda.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5364302806648877298" /></a><br />Today in Tehran tens of thousands of mourners including Mr Mousavi have courageously gathered to remember Neda, who was shot dead by a sniper from a pro-Ahmadinajad faction militia - should I call it the Praetorian Guard? The world is watching.http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2009/07/we-are-neda.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-4266526107193106293Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:03:00 +00002009-07-30T13:59:57.478+01:00Three pillars, three fundamental valuesThe Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a FAIR, free and open society, in which we seek to BALANCE the FUNDAMENTAL VALUES [<span style="font-style:italic;">N.B. plural]</span> of liberty, EQUALITY and COMMUNITY. By joining the party we all sign up to these words, which commence the preamble to the party's federal constitution. Rather good aren't they? I like them. I like striving for balance between the three values. I have put in capitals the bits that don't get enough emphasis sometimes, yet I have not noticed anyone putting a constitutional amendment to the party conference to take them out. The preamble has lots more good stuff in it, such as that we believe each generation is responsible for the fate of our planet and, by safeguarding the balance of nature and the environment, for the long term continuity of life in all its forms. <span style="font-style:italic;">Hear hear. I'm all for that. I don't want to be a tadpole in a pond that's going stagnant. </span>Also we champion the well being of individuals. <span style="font-style:italic;">Hear hear. Should we aim to be like Denmark? </span>So the framers were rather avant garde. You can read the whole thing on the party website somewhere. But the fundamentals are a balance between freedom, equality and community. I feel enthusiastic about that. We should shout about it more.http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2009/07/three-pillars-three-fundamental-values.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-5574973573719576548Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:42:00 +00002009-07-30T12:56:30.697+01:00A liberal response to the global population crisisTo remind you, dear reader, of some excellent policy adopted recently I am posting the following text which was passed unanimously by the Liberal International Congress in May 2008. <br />"The 55th Liberal International Congress, <br />Noting that <br />(1) The human population of the world, currently about 6.7 billion, is more than double what it was in 1960, and is continuing to increase at a rate of an extra 1.5 million people per week; <br />(2) This rate of increase threatens the sustainability of the world’s resources; <br />(3) Population increases can enslave people in poverty; <br />(4) Reproductive health conditions are the leading cause of death and illness in women of childbearing age worldwide; and at least 200 million women want to plan their families or space their children, but lack access to safe and effective contraception; <br />Recalling that the 54th Liberal International Congress in Marrakech, 2006:<br />(A) Reaffirmed the absolute imperative at the beginning of the 21st century to raise the living standards of the extreme poor, in particular that half of the global population which struggles to survive on less than $2 per day,<br />(B) Reaffirmed its commitment to the eight Millennium Development Goals that were adopted by 189 nations during the Millennium Development Summit in 2000, which include the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, the education and empowerment of girls and women, the improvement of maternal and child health and ensuring environmental sustainability; <br />(C) Recognised that some cultural or religious practices in society hinder the contribution of women;<br />(D) Recognised that excessive population growth places enormous strains on agricultural land and available nutritional and environmental resources;<br />(E) Commended both freedom of choice for individuals and equal treatment of all citizens and residents, and non-discrimination;<br />Believing that: <br />(a) In order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, especially the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, population growth and sexual and reproductive health and rights also need to be addressed;<br />(b) In particular, the present rate of consumption of the world’s resources is at odds with the Seventh Millennium Development Goal, namely environmental sustainability; <br />(c) It is vital to reverse the trend towards a burgeoning human population of the planet if real progress is to be made on the Millennium Development Goals, a better quality of life is to be shared by all, and the threats of worsening violence, epidemics and starvation are to be lessened; <br />(d) Parents have the human right and the freedom to choose to plan their families and thereby improve their health and quality of life, but there is an unmet need for education, family planning and reproductive health services; <br />(e) Where such unmet need exists, unwanted pregnancies can be obstacles to gender equality and subsequent social justice, economic growth and environmental sustainability; <br />Calls upon Liberal International's member parties to urge their governments: <br />(1) To especially promote the education of girls and women;<br />(2) To provide full access to comprehensive family planning and sexual and reproductive health services to all those who wish to access these services; <br />(3) To defend and advance gender equality and to eliminate all forms of discrimination, coercion and violence against women."http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2009/07/liberal-response-to-global-population.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-8702563836845970970Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:35:00 +00002009-07-29T17:22:40.510+01:00Hush - don't mention the central problemAt a Federal Policy Committee meeting earlier this year I argued that the Lib Dems had a responsibility to talk about the threat to the environment from the growth in the world's population (which has more than quadrupled since 1900), and I mentioned in support that Sir David Attenborough had talked about this issue. To my surprise, I was denounced by another committee member for (allegedly) dragging Sir David into politics. <br />So even though the denunciation was twaddle, in that environmental science is not politics, and someone of Sir David's national treasure status is way above politics, I won't drag him in. I will just quote what he reportedly said when he became a patron of the Optimum Population Trust earlier this year: “I’ve seen wildlife under mounting human pressure all over the world and it’s not just from human economy or technology - behind every threat is the frightening explosion in human numbers. <br />“I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more. That’s why I support the OPT, and I wish the environmental NGOs would follow their lead, and spell out this central problem loud and clear."http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2009/07/hush-dont-mention-central-problem.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461611085988744425.post-8793554909423819099Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:31:00 +00002009-07-17T09:38:55.631+01:00A small town becomes a signpostBundanoon, in New South Wales, Australia, has voted to ban bottled water.http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/2009/07/small-town-becomes-signpost.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jo Hayes)0